Ex Parte Hammad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2018

11764343 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111764,343 06/18/2007 Ayman Hammad
66945 7590 07/06/2018
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP/VISA
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
80083-717271 (024420US) 5439
EXAMINER
MARCUS, LELAND R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte A YMAN HAMMAD, PA TRICK FAITH and MARK CARLSON
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/764,343 1
Technology Center 3600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 11-17, 30, 31, 46, 53-57, and 68-78, which
constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Visa U.S.A. Inc. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 4.
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to "[ s ]ystems and
methods for improved consumer and portable consumer device
authentication." Spec. ,-r 5. 2
Claim 11, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
11. A method comprising:
receiving, by a server computer from an access device, an
authorization request message generated by the access device for
a transaction between a merchant and a consumer, the
authorization request message including first dynamic data
generated by a portable consumer device used by the consumer
after the portable consumer device interacts with the access
device at the merchant, wherein the access device is a point of
sale terminal, and wherein the authorization request message
further includes an account number associated with the portable
consumer and a transaction amount for the transaction;
authenticating, by the server computer, the portable
consumer device by using the first dynamic data received in the
authorization request message, wherein the first dynamic data is
different for each transaction and is generated from at least one
of transaction-specific data and consumer-specific data, wherein
the portable consumer device is authenticated when the first
dynamic data matches second dynamic data generated by the
server computer; and
authenticating, by the server computer, the consumer by
retrieving, by the server computer, a challenge
message from a database, wherein the challenge message
2 We refer to the Specification filed June 18, 2007 ("Spec."); Final Office
Action mailed Nov. 12, 2015 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed April 8,
2016 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed Nov. 4, 2016 ("Ans."); and
the Reply Brief filed Jan. 4, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
is dynamic, and wherein the challenge message is based
on a previous transaction associated with the consumer,
sending, by the server computer, the challenge
message to the access device, wherein the challenge
message is sent based on a set of criteria,
receiving, by the server computer from the access
device, a challenge response from the consumer, and
validating the received challenge response.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Evans US 2004/0078340 Al Apr. 22, 2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 11-17, 30, 31, 46, 53-57, and 68-78 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more. Final Act. 2.
Claims 11, 12, 14--17, 30, 31, 46, 57, 68-74, 77, and 78 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evans. Final Act. 3.
Claims 13, 53-56, 75, and 76 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Evans and Official Notice. Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
3
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Section 101 Re} ection
The Alice/Mayo Framework Governing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in§ 101 of the Patent Act,
which recites: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions
and requirements of this title."
There are, however, three judicially created exceptions to the broad
categories of patent-eligible subject matter in § 101: laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134
S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70-71 (2012). Although an abstract idea, itself, is patent-
ineligible, an application of the abstract idea may be patent-eligible. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. Thus, we must consider "the elements of each claim both
individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the
additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). The claim must contain
elements or a combination of elements that are "sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[abstract idea] itself." Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Supreme Court set forth a two-part "framework for distinguishing
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
4
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Id. at
2355.
Id.
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. [Mayo,] 132
S. Ct., at 1296-1297. If so, we then ask, "[w]hat else is there in
the claims before us?" Id., at--, 132 S. Ct., at 1297. To
answer that question, we consider the elements of each claim
both individually and "as an ordered combination" to determine
whether the additional elements "transform the nature of the
claim" into a patent-eligible application. Id., at--, 132 S.
Ct., at 1298, 1297. We have described step two of this analysis
as a search for an "'inventive concept"'-i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself." Id., at--, 132 S. Ct., at
1294.
"The 'abstract idea' step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the
'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's
'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs
of Tex. v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016)); see also Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). There is no definitive rule to determine what constitutes an
"abstract idea." Rather, the Federal Circuit has explained that "both [it] and
the Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to
those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous
cases." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1334; see also Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that, in
determining whether claims are patent eligible under § 101, "the decisional
mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which a similar
5
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases were about, and
which way they were decided").
Under the second step of the Alice/Mayo framework, we examine the
claim limitations "more microscopically," Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, to
determine whether they contain "additional features" sufficient to
"'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application."
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78). "Mere recitation
of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to
an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than
performance of well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]
previously known to the industry." In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig.,
823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
Abstract Idea
The Examiner concludes the claims are directed to the "exchange of
data tokens to ensure both parties of a transaction are verified, specifically
transaction authentication using a network." Final Act. 2. The Examiner
further concludes the claims are directed to a fundamental economic
practice, including concepts related to the economy and commerce, such as
agreements between people in the form of contracts, legal obligations, and
business relations, similar to "mitigating settlement risk." Ans. 2.
Specifically, the Examiner concludes the claimed authenticating using first
dynamic data and retrieving a challenge message is directed to "mitigating
settlement risk" by addressing the business problem of reducing risk of
fraudulent transaction and applying information concerning the account
holder, which is not a technological solution. Ans. 4.
6
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
The Examiner further concludes the claims are directed to organizing
human activity. Ans. 2-3. Specifically, the Examiner concludes the claimed
receiving an authorization request message is similar to the abstract idea of
"processing loan information" because it processes a transaction
information, and the claimed retrieving a challenge message, receiving a
challenge response, and validating the challenge response are similar to the
abstract idea of "generating rule-based tasks for processing an insurance
claim" because they generate rule-based tasks for processing a transaction.
Ans. 4--5.
Appellants argue the Examiner misrepresents the invention and
alleged abstract idea. App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue that the
claims may relate to authenticating a portable consumer device used in a
transaction and authenticating the consumer, but the claimed invention does
not ensure both parties of a transaction are verified. Id.
Appellants contend the claims do not recite fundamental economic
practice. App. Br. 13. According to Appellants, the claims, similar to the
claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2014), are "necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a
problem arising specifically in the realm of computer systems and networks"
(App. Br. 13-14) as the claimed authentication processes are "performed by
computing devices on transactions also performed by computing devices"
(App. Br. 14). See Reply Br. 3.
Appellants further argue authentication, such as the claimed
authenticating processes, using computerized content, does not constitute a
fundamental economic practice. App. Br. 14 (citing PNC Bank v. Secure
Axcess, LLC, CBM2014-00100, Paper 10, slip op. at 21 (PTAB Sept. 9,
7
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
2014)). Citing to PNC Bank, Appellants also argue the claims do not recite
a method of organizing human activity because the claimed invention is
directed to a fundamental transformation of data, and the recited computer-
implementation is required for carrying out the invention rather than being a
mere automation of a well-known human activity. App. Br. 16; see Reply
Br. 4. According to Appellants, the claimed computerized modification of
data cannot be performed in the human mind. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred. At this time, we decline to consider the Board's prior PNC Bank
decision. PNC Bank is a non-precedential decision of the Board, and
therefore, not binding on this panel. Moreover, following an appeal to our
reviewing court, which vacated the decision, the Supreme Court granted
certiorari, vacated the appeal as moot, and remanded the case back "to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with instructions to
remand the case to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to vacate the Board's
order." PNC Bank Nat 'l Assoc. v. Secure Axcess, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1982
(2018). In light of its status as non-precedential and the Supreme Court's
instructions, we will not consider it.
On their face, the claims in this case, as identified by the Examiner
(Ans. 3--4), are drawn to the concept of reducing the risk of fraudulent
transactions. Preventing fraudulent transactions, by authenticating a
consumer and portable consumer device, has been previously determined to
be an abstract idea. See Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (determining a claim directed to determining the
validity of credit card transactions to be patent-ineligible).
8
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
Moreover, we disagree with Appellants that the claims in this case are
directed to a computer-centric problem or necessarily rooted in computer
technology like the claims in DDR. In DDR, the Court found that the claims
"do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known
from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the
Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks." DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. Here, unlike the claims in
DDR, the alleged problem being overcome is fraud in electronic payment
transactions (see Reply Br. 3), a well-known problem that existed in the pre-
Internet era in the form of fraudulent transactions (i.e., check fraud).
Furthermore, Appellants have not provided any evidence or support
that fraudulent transactions are a new issue rooted in computer technology.
The claimed invention in this case (i.e., a server computer receiving an
authorization request message from an access device with dynamic data
generated by a portable consumer device to authenticate the portable
consumer device, and the server computer retrieving a challenge message
and receiving a challenge response from the access device to be validated in
order to authenticate the consumer) could be implemented directly by a
human performing analogous functions by hand and/or with the assistance of
a general purpose computer applied to facilitate the functions at a high level
of generality or with the assistance of additional elements performing well-
known, conventional functions. The claimed invention does not improve
computers as tools but rather improves independently abstract ideas that use
computers as tools.
9
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed
to an abstract idea.
Significantly More
The Examiner determines that the claims do not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because they "recite the use of a generic computer performing
generic computer tasks." Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue the claimed computer systems are specially
programmed machines and not generic. Reply Br. 6. Appellants further
contend the claimed invention's ability to run on a general-purpose
computer does not doom the claims. Reply Br. 6 (citing Electric Power
Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Appellants
further argue the claimed invention "provides improvements to the technical
field of authentication in electronic payment transaction to reduce the risk of
fraud." App. Br. 20-21.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred. As discussed above, we disagree with Appellants that the claims in
this case are directed to a computer-centric problem. We find the claimed
invention does not improve computers as tools but rather improves
independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
We agree with the Examiner's determination that, similar to Electric
Power, the claimed physical structures (i.e., server computer, portable
consumer device, access device) are "used purely as a tool to enhance the
processes focused on an abstract idea." Ans. 8. The claimed "portable
consumer device" encompasses a broad list of forms, including "cellular
10
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
phones, personal digital assistants (PD As), pagers, payment cards, security
cards, access cards, smart media, transponders, and the like." Spec. i-f 27.
The claimed "access device" is a "point of sale terminal" and "any suitable
point of sale terminal may be used including card readers" which "may
include any suitable contact or contactless mode of operation." Spec. i-f 31.
Examples of the claimed access device include "point of sale (POS) devices,
cellular phones, PD As, personal computers (PCs), tablet PCs, handheld
specialized readers, set-top boxes, electronic cash registers (ECRs ),
automated teller machines (ATMs), virtual cash registers (VCRs), kiosks,
security systems, access systems, and the like." Spec. i-f 30. The claimed
"server computer is typically a powerful computer or cluster of computers,"
including "a large mainframe, a minicomputer cluster, or a group of servers
functioning as a unit." Spec. i-f 29.
Therefore, the claimed structures (i.e., server computer, portable
consumer device, access device) are simply conventional computer and
network components and merely perform the functions of collection,
analysis, and display functions on generic computer components. See
Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (citing BASCOM Global Internet Servs.,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349--52 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) ("The
claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or
display components, or even a 'non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of known, conventional pieces,' but merely call for
performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display
functions 'on a set of generic computer components' and display devices.").
With regard to Appellants' preemption argument (see App. Br. 18-
19), although the extent of preemption is a consideration, the absence of
11
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
complete preemption is not dispositive. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("While preemption
may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete
preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."); Ultramercial, Inc. v.
Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("[T]he Supreme Court
has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it
still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token
pre- or post-solution activity- such as identifying a relevant audience, a
category of use, field of use, or technological environment.") (citations
omitted), vacated and remanded, WildTangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC,
134 S. Ct. 2870 (2014) (remanding for consideration in light of Alice, 134 S.
Ct. 2347). Accordingly, even if the claims does not preempt the abstract
idea, that alone is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible.
To the extent Appellant relies on a lack of prior art (see App. Br. 20),
Appellants misapprehend controlling precedent. Although the second step
in the Alice framework is termed a search for an "inventive concept," the
analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness. Alice, 134 S.
Ct. at 2355. A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea
is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. 66 at 78-79. Further,
"under the Mayol Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered
law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the
novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent
eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, as well as commensurate
12
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
independent claims 15, 16, and 17, and dependent claims 12-14, 30, 31, 46,
53-57, and 68-78, not separately argued.
Section 103 Rejection
Claims 11-17, 30, 31, 46, 53-56, and 69-78
Appellants contend Evans does not teach the claimed authenticating a
portable consumer device or the claimed authenticating the consumer. See
App. Br. 23-26; Reply Br. 7-10. Specifically, Appellants argue Evans'
"sequences of actions" and communications are not "generated by a portable
consumer device." App. Br. 24. Appellants further argue Evans' data for
authentication is static in nature and are "not generated by, or used to
authenticate, a portable consumer device," and thereby Evans does not teach
"first dynamic data generated by a portable consumer device," as recited in
claim 11. App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 7-8.
Appellants further contend Evans' "sequences of actions" and
"communications" cannot teach both the claimed dynamic data to
authenticate a portable consumer device and the claimed dynamic challenge
message to authenticate a consumer. App. Br. 25; Reply Br. 9-10.
According to Appellants, Evans teaches "the use or retrieval of static data
and analyzing the static data in order to conduct validation of a transaction,"
but does not teach the claimed challenge message that is dynamic. App. Br.
25 (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 10. Further according to Appellants,
Evans' data is not based on previous transaction associated with the
consumer, as required by the claim. Reply Br. 10. Appellants further argue
Evans' "sequence of actions" and "communications" are not sent to an
13
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
access device, and thereby do not teach the challenge message that is sent to
the access device, as required by claim 11. App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 9-10.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' arguments.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). There is a presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
customary meaning. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). An applicant may rebut this presumption, however, by acting as
his own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification
with "reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." See In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition,
limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). "[A]lthough the
specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we
have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
embodiments. . . . [C]laims may embrace 'different subject matter than is
illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification."' Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (citations
omitted).
Appellants' Specification does not define "dynamic" data. Paragraph
65 provides an example where a read-write device "can also change dynamic
data (e.g., a counter) on the magnetic stripe." The claimed dynamic data, in
light of Appellants' Specification, merely provides an example that dynamic
data can be changed and encompasses a counter. However, the claimed
14
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
dynamic data, in light of Appellants' Specification, does not preclude Evans'
"sequences of actions and communications" that are "dynamically
determin[ ed]" for "differing conditions for differing transactions ... based
on information and parameters regarding the transaction." Evans i-f 56
(emphasis added). The claimed dynamic data also does not preclude Evans'
data which may be "derived from the initiating transaction message" (Evans
i-f 70) and is based on "dynamically derived rules" (Evans i-f 71 (emphasis
added)).
Appellants' Specification also does not define "challenge messages."
Paragraph 57 describes "an alternative or additional authentication measure"
providing that an "issuer may provide a challenge question (e.g., what is
your birthday) to the consumer." Paragraph 90 describes a challenge
message as being "dynamic or semi-dynamic in nature" and being generated
and sent to the consumer "[ w ]hen the authorization request message is
requested and analyzed." The claimed "challenge message," in light of the
Specification, is merely a prompt for the purposes of authentication that can
be dynamic, and does not preclude Evans' dynamically generated sequences
of actions and communications for different conditions and transactions
based on the transaction. See Evans i-f 56.
As such, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Evans' data which
is derived from the initiating transaction message is dynamic in nature and
based on transactions, thereby teaching the claimed "first dynamic data" that
is "different for each transaction." See Ans. 9--10 (citing Evans i-f 70); Final
Act. 4 (citing Evans i-f 71 ). Specifically, Evans teaches that the data is used
for each party to "confirm his/her identity and intentions" over a
"communications link, using a means appropriate to his/her corresponding
15
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
communications device." Evans i-f 70. In other words, Evans' data derived
from the transaction message is used to authenticate the consumer (i.e.,
party's identity) and the portable consumer device (i.e., party's
communications device). We further agree with the Examiner's finding that
Evans' dynamically determined sequences of actions and communications
based on transactions is dynamic in nature and based on transactions,
thereby teaching the claimed "challenge message" that is "based on a
previous transaction" and is "dynamic." See Ans. 10 (citing Evans i-f 56);
Final Act. 4 (citing Evans i-f 56).
With regard to Appellants' argument that Evans' data for
authentication is not generated by a portable consumer device (App. Br. 24;
Reply Br. 7-8), we agree with the Examiner that Evans' data confirming
identity is supplied "by said party via said communications link, using a
means appropriate to his/her corresponding communications device." See
Ans. 9-10 (citing Evans i-f 70); see Final Act. 4 (citing Evans i-f 71). Evans
teaches these communications devices can be portable consumer devices,
including "mobile e-mail device (such as a PDA), e-mail capable cell phone
or pager." Evans, Table 1. In other words, Evans describes, for the
purposes of authenticating a consumer, dynamic data for authentication that
is "generated by a portable consumer device."
With regard to Appellants' argument that Evans' sequence of actions
and communications are not sent to the access device (App. Br. 26; Reply
Br. 9-10), we agree with the Examiner's findings that Evans' results are
"transmit[ted] to said second system or device," and Evans teaches
"transmitting and receiving signals to and from a specific class of devices
(terminals)." Final Act. 4 (citing Evans i-fi-171, 170). Appellants do not rebut
16
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
the Examiner's findings that Evans teaches transmitting results to another
device, or specifically that Evans teaches access devices including point of
sale terminals.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 11, along with the rejections of commensurate independent claims 15,
16, and 17, and dependent claims 12-14, 30, 31, 46, 53-56, and 69-78, not
separately argued. See App. Br. 26, 28.
Claim 57
Claim 57 further recites "the authorization request message is a first
authorization request message" and "transmitting, by the server computer,
the challenge response to an issuer server computer as part of a second
authorization request message."
Appellants contend Evans only teaches sending one message
regarding the transaction without subsequent messages, and thereby does not
teach sending a response to a challenge message in a second authorization
request. App. Br. 27.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Evans teaches a plurality
of sequences of actions and communications, thereby teaching multiple
messages (i.e., first authorization request message, second authorization
request message). Ans. 12 (citing Evans i-f 56).
For example, Evans discloses "dynamically determining a plurality of
sequences of actions and communications to be taken under differing
conditions for differing transactions." Evans i-f 56 (emphasis added). In
other words, Evans teaches multiple actions and communications for
different conditions and transactions (i.e., multiple authorization request
17
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
messages). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument
to rebut the Examiner's finding.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim
57.
Claim 68
Claim 68 further recites "linking, by the server computer, the second
authorization request message to the first authorization request message for
the transaction by a transaction code."
Appellants contend Evans does not teach multiple authorization
request messages, much less linking the multiple authorization request
messages through a transaction code. App. Br. 28.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Evans' identified
assignment of roles teaches linking the messages. Ans. 13. For example,
Evans teaches "the automatic assignment of Roles to the party or parties of
the transaction, such that different actions may be taken in regard to each
party based upon not only the party's identity but also the Role of the party
in the transaction." Evans i-f 123. In other words, Evans teaches assigning
roles in transactions (i.e., transactions associated through assigned roles).
As discussed above, Evans teaches multiple actions and communications for
different conditions and transactions (i.e., multiple authorization request
messages). See Evans i-f 56.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
claimed "second authorization request message" is linked "to the first
authorization request message for the transaction by a transaction code"
18
Appeal2017-004004
Application 11/7 64,343
precludes Evans' multiple actions and communications for different
transactions and the transactions being associated by assigned roles.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim
68.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-17, 30, 31, 46, 53-57, and 68-
78 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 11-17, 30, 31, 46, 53-57, and
68-78 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
19